Spec URL: http://mgieseki.fedorapeople.org/review/tmw.spec SRPM URL: http://mgieseki.fedorapeople.org/review/tmw-20110911-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: The Mana World (TMW for short) is an innovative, free and open source MMORPG. Besides the official game server, this client can connect to multiple community-grown servers, which provide varied environments and further challenge. In TMW, the players solve quests, fight monsters, practice skills and study magic. Social activities include parties, trading and limited PvP in designated areas. While there are no limits to solo play, collaborative behavior such as healing others, fighting together and banding up against tougher monsters are rewarded in the game. The Mana World graphics have been inspired by 2D pixel art at its prime of the late 1990s, when many RPG classics, such as Secret of Mana for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System, were released. Additional information: tmw is supposed to replace the manaworld package which conflicts with mana. tmw is based on mana and provides the manaworld branding/theme only.
Taking this for review.
Scratch build for f18: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4543542 $ rpmlint -i -v * tmw.src: I: checking tmw.src: I: checking-url http://themanaworld.org (timeout 10 seconds) tmw.src:11: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes manaworld The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if possible. tmw.src: I: checking-url http://downloads.sourceforge.net/themanaworld/tmw-branding/tmw-branding-20110911.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) tmw.noarch: I: checking tmw.noarch: I: checking-url http://themanaworld.org (timeout 10 seconds) tmw.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided manaworld If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package should also be provided in order to not cause unnecessary dependency breakage. If the obsoleting package is not a compatible replacement for the old one, leave out the Provides. tmw.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tmw Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. tmw.spec:11: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes manaworld The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if possible. tmw.spec: I: checking-url http://downloads.sourceforge.net/themanaworld/tmw-branding/tmw-branding-20110911.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. What means the error message? I can't found anything in the packaging guidelines which refers to that. As far as I understand, rpmlint wants to have a version number of manaworld, although we obsolete it generally, regardless of the version number.
OK, thanks for the hint. I've added the explicit version number of the latest manaworld package available in the Fedora repos in order to make rpmlint happy. Unfortunately, there is no straight upgrade path from manaworld to tmw, i.e. both projects use a different versioning scheme that can't be mapped to each other. Thus, I have to omit the Provides statement so that the remaining rpmlint warning (besides the missing mapage info) can be ignored: tmw.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided manaworld Spec URL: http://mgieseki.fedorapeople.org/review/tmw.spec SRPM URL: http://mgieseki.fedorapeople.org/review/tmw-20110911-2.fc17.src.rpm
New scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4551751 $ rpmlint -i -v * tmw.src: I: checking tmw.src: I: checking-url http://themanaworld.org (timeout 10 seconds) tmw.src: I: checking-url http://downloads.sourceforge.net/themanaworld/tmw-branding/tmw-branding-20110911.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) tmw.noarch: I: checking tmw.noarch: I: checking-url http://themanaworld.org (timeout 10 seconds) tmw.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided manaworld If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package should also be provided in order to not cause unnecessary dependency breakage. If the obsoleting package is not a compatible replacement for the old one, leave out the Provides. tmw.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tmw Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. tmw.spec: I: checking-url http://downloads.sourceforge.net/themanaworld/tmw-branding/tmw-branding-20110911.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. OK so far, according to your explanation. --------------------------------- key: [+] OK [.] OK, not applicable [X] needs work --------------------------------- [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. GPLv2 [+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. $ sha256sum * 2ea5f3e677928efab1699a086ddec6d14f660af5afbca7f9d86f839a7d41b15b tmw-branding-20110911.tar.gz 2ea5f3e677928efab1699a086ddec6d14f660af5afbca7f9d86f839a7d41b15b tmw-branding-20110911.tar.gz.orig [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. [.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [.] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [.] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package. [.] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [.] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See Koji build above (which uses Mock anyway). [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [.] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [.] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [.] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. I assume the help files are called directly from the GUI. Would be nice to have them also in %doc, at least at symlinks. Regardless of the special formatting, they are plain text files actually. Well, this is no review blocker, just an idea. ---------------- PACKAGE APPROVED ----------------
Thanks for the review, Mario. Would you mind to also have a look at the companion package tmw-music (bug 860703)? If you have an open review request, I could take it in return. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: tmw Short Description: The Mana World is a 2D MMORPG Owners: mgieseki Branches: f16 f17 f18 InitialCC:
BTW, I'll add symlinks of the docs as you suggested. They might be helpful for some users.
Git done (by process-git-requests).
tmw-20110911-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tmw-20110911-2.fc16
tmw-20110911-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tmw-20110911-2.fc18
tmw-20110911-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tmw-20110911-2.fc17
(In reply to comment #5) > Thanks for the review, Mario. Would you mind to also have a look at the > companion package tmw-music (bug 860703)? If you have an open review > request, I could take it in return. OK, I'll have a look at it. A review swap is much appreciated, look here at my open reviews: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&component=Package%20Review&email1=mario.blaettermann%40gmail.com&emailreporter1=1&emailtype1=exact&product=Fedora&query_format=advanced&query_format=advanced&version=rawhide&order=bug_id&list_id=633379
tmw-20110911-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
All packages are marked as stable now.